4 ms·

I'd still like to know if you're claiming Darcs 3 (which may or may not be at a similar stage of development) still has that issue (which I don't remember bitin

by gnufx 6y ago

I'd still like to know if you're claiming Darcs 3 (which may or may not be at a similar stage of development) still has that issue (which I don't remember biting me). I've no particular axe to grind as a Darcs user, as long as I have a nice patch-based system.

pmeunier 6y ago
I don't think Darcs 3 was even started. Darcs 2 recently solved the exponential merge, but it is now quadratic (which is still exponentially slower than Pijul instead of double-exponentially). I've also been really happy with Darcs, expect for two things: - Conflicts are not handled very well, as if they were not properly stored internally. `darcs revert` on a conflict doesn't always do what I expect. - The fact that it doesn't scale (even with the quadratic algorithm) means that big users can't adopt it, which means that too few people write tools for it (including a hosting website: I'm aware of hub.darcs.net, but there are many things missing, including on security). Darcs is hard to install on platforms such as Windows. Also, few people know it, which means that it's hard to collaborate using it.
- gnufx 6y ago
  I should have explicitly said the version 3 theory, which has an imlpementation in Darcs 2.16. I've never seen worst case quadratic complexity, like quicksort's, labelled exponential before, which seems misleading. I think there's more to practical scalability than worst-case asymptotic complexity, even if guaranteed linear is likely a good start; have the two been compared for Linux or GCC, for instance? I'd be happy to use the best combination of speed and features/usability. I just set up Trac for Darcs hosting -- though it has some tension with the Subversion model -- exporting to git for people who want the pain. I'd investigate Sourcehut integration if I had the time.

4 ms·

I'd still like to know if you're claiming Darcs 3 (which may or may not be at a similar stage of development) still has that issue (which I don't remember bitin

by gnufx 6y ago

pmeunier 6y ago
I don't think Darcs 3 was even started. Darcs 2 recently solved the exponential merge, but it is now quadratic (which is still exponentially slower than Pijul instead of double-exponentially). I've also been really happy with Darcs, expect for two things: - Conflicts are not handled very well, as if they were not properly stored internally. `darcs revert` on a conflict doesn't always do what I expect. - The fact that it doesn't scale (even with the quadratic algorithm) means that big users can't adopt it, which means that too few people write tools for it (including a hosting website: I'm aware of hub.darcs.net, but there are many things missing, including on security). Darcs is hard to install on platforms such as Windows. Also, few people know it, which means that it's hard to collaborate using it.
- gnufx 6y ago
  I should have explicitly said the version 3 theory, which has an imlpementation in Darcs 2.16. I've never seen worst case quadratic complexity, like quicksort's, labelled exponential before, which seems misleading. I think there's more to practical scalability than worst-case asymptotic complexity, even if guaranteed linear is likely a good start; have the two been compared for Linux or GCC, for instance? I'd be happy to use the best combination of speed and features/usability. I just set up Trac for Darcs hosting -- though it has some tension with the Subversion model -- exporting to git for people who want the pain. I'd investigate Sourcehut integration if I had the time.